News


Reflections on Watershed Restoration from Oregon to Ellicott City, Climate Change and Adaptation By, Lori Lilly

posted Jan 7, 2020, 1:11 PM by Howard Ecoworks   [ updated Jan 12, 2020, 10:47 AM ]

My professional career for the past 15 or so years has revolved around environmental restoration.  I’ve typically worked at watershed scales in planning, identification, prioritization and implementation of small to larg(ish) restoration projects – from rain gardens in Maryland to levee removal in Oregon.  I’ve operated under this assumption, somewhat unconsciously early on in my career, that restoration works, it helps, and it will get our degraded natural systems to a functional place that will support life.  That is, largely, the intent of restoration, I thought – to get water bodies to a point when they will support healthy populations of insects and fish, that then support other species. 

The watersheds out west in Oregon are far less degraded than they are here in the Mid-Atlantic.  In Oregon, one species was the primary focus – salmon.  Restoration activities focused on creating and enhancing wetlands and off-channel habitat for juvenile salmonids to rear, as well as addressing and removing barriers to spawning habitat.  Watershed plans were developed that identified the highest priority rearing and spawning restoration projects.  Other watershed concerns do exist – drinking water protection, water quantity issues, invasive species, pollutants such as temperature – but by and large, restoration is focused on salmon.  And, in those relatively healthy Pacific Northwest systems with goals revolving around a single species, it does seem that cumulative restoration is working and resulting in a functional “lift.”  The University of Washington was studying this exact thing when I was out there and have documented results in a recent paper for the Lower Columbia River Estuary (Diefenderfer et al, 2016[1]).

When I moved back East and started studying watershed restoration from a more technical perspective at the Center for Watershed Protection, my eyes opened.  Some of my first projects were around Columbia, SC and Fairfax County, VA.  The Columbia, SC watershed (Crane Creek Watershed), was more like the watersheds that I knew from Oregon – relatively intact with large acreages of forest and areas/species of special concern.  The Fairfax County watershed (Accotink Watershed), was a wreck.  I was blown away by the depths of the incised stream channels, at the encroachment from development, at the quality of the water that didn’t support much life at all.  This was the kind of watershed that I grew up with in southeast PA but didn’t recognize as “degraded” until that point in my life due to a lack experience and context from other areas.

I helped in different parts of the watershed restoration planning process for each of these and other watersheds around the country when I worked at the Center – establishing goals, engaging stakeholders, doing various field assessments, prioritizing, generating cost estimates and environmental benefits for projects.  I don’t know the outcomes of those watershed planning efforts – did the communities attain their identified watershed goals?  Did they build any of the projects?  Are the same people still trying to fix their watersheds?  Have the goals changed since that time (like 8-10 years ago)?  How is climate change impacting the communities in those watersheds and their goals for restoration?

I began studying the watershed draining to Old Ellicott City, the Tiber Hudson, in 2011, and I’ve come to know and understand this watershed more than any other.  It began as a watershed plan, the typical process the Center uses to study watersheds.  The watershed size – 3.5 square miles – is, by the standards of watershed science people, a “restorable” area – about the optimal size to be able to determine a baseline, define a measurable goal, and assess progress to the goal.  Through a stakeholder-driven process (i.e., meetings at the Miller Branch library, Judge’s Bench 😊, etc.) and with our professional team at the Center, we identified a long-term goal of an increase in the IBI – the index of biological integrity, that is, a functional lift to support aquatic life (fish and bugs), and an intermediate goal to reduce the “flashiness index.”  The flashiness index (Baker et al, 2004[2]) tracks gradual changes in stream flashiness and accounts for external variability while masking changes associated with weather patterns or climate change.  The idea is that restoration of the natural hydrologic regime would show a decrease in the stream flashiness index over time, which would then help to reach the long-term goal of improving aquatic life.  Three devastating floods later (2011, 2016 and 2018), I’m realizing that it’s not realistic to have a long-term restoration goal for the Tiber Hudson that revolves around increasing the IBI.  The time horizon for restoring this watershed to that goal, and maybe any watersheds and communities feeling the brunt of climate change, is shortening fast. 

Let’s look at some other context with the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits administered by States to local jurisdictions through Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permits.  In MD, some municipalities are nearing their achievement for requirements for impervious cover treatment under their permits[3].  Much of this is due to bean-counting exercises for how various projects get “credited” – namely, new credits for stream restoration that have been established by the Chesapeake Bay Program are enabling some jurisdictions to meet or surpass their targets much quicker than expected.  What does this mean?  Are the streams in those jurisdictions now supporting aquatic biodiversity?  Are the watersheds restored?  Is the job done?  No.  Of course, it isn’t.  Whether stream restoration alone can result in functional lift is a debate in and of itself in the scientific community.  Regardless, walk above or below any stream restoration project and you are likely to find erosion, incised channels, widened streams.  Don’t get me wrong, I believe stream restoration is part of an integrated approach as I argue below, but it’s not the only answer or way to get from here to there, and just because a jurisdiction has done a bunch of stream restoration doesn’t mean there is nothing left to do.

There’s no doubt that governments, municipalities and non-profits are spending loads of money on all sorts of restoration.   Some estimate the total cost of restoring the Chesapeake Bay from $7 billion for individual state costs to $28 billion for the entire watershed (Congressional Research Service, 2018[4]).  Whether things are improving from the investments made into the Bay since the mid-60s, is debatable, depending on who you talk to.  I think it’s fair to say that things are improving in some ways – we see crab and oyster populations increasing, some water impairments like phosphorus and sediment improving, and these improvements being made despite increases in population and impervious surfaces.  But are these improvements happening fast enough?  Are they happening fast enough to now compensate for the shrinking timeframe that is being forced upon us from climate change?  Are they happening fast enough to make our watersheds resilient to a changing environment?  I don’t think they are, esp. when I am looking from the more local context of the Tiber Hudson watershed.

This has been a real struggle for me lately, occupying much of my brain power when I’m walking or swimming or otherwise trying to decompress – I come back to thinking about this new reality and what it means for those of us that are on the ground trying to make a difference through environmental restoration.   Recently, my Board and I completed our first strategic plan for Howard EcoWorks.  I struggled a lot with our environmental restoration goals – I tried setting them 20 years out and then backed into how many projects and how much workforce would be needed to get there – it was overwhelming.  I kept shrinking the goal but there came a point where I just didn’t want to shrink it anymore yet there would still be too much work and not enough people or funds to get it done.  And this is irrespective of continued environmental degradation, and a shrinking timeframe within which to get it done due to climate change.

I think about Ellicott City and the Tiber Hudson watershed as a case study for Where Watershed Restoration Meets Climate Change, and the conclusion that I come to for this watershed, is that yes, we need to do restoration, that a reduction in flashiness index goal still makes sense (though no one is currently using it that I’m aware of).  The long-term goal of increasing the IBI doesn’t make sense but the type of restoration that is the focus makes a difference, while concurrently we need to adapt.  So, go with the retention projects to reduce runoff but also go with restoring both the natural and built infrastructure – stream restoration, re-build walls, floodproof buildings, increase capacity of under-sized culverts and storm drain systems, and stay on top of maintenance of streams and stormwater infrastructure.  These actions will enable the watershed to better withstand lesser storm events that are continuously weakening the system.  By being more resilient to the more frequent storm events, the watershed will be less vulnerable to larger storm events.  And we need to monitor – establish volume reduction goals associated with flashiness or a similar metric so that progress can be documented.

This is where I think hazard mitigation planning and water quality meet and where state, local and federal governments can find more synergy in resource allocation, programs, funding and technical assistance to better support communities facing hazards being exacerbated by climate change. 

A hazard can be defined as impact times probability.  We are seeing both of these variables increase with climate change, therefore we need to expect and plan for more hazards.  The hazards are going to vary across regions –flash floods, storm surges, fires, tornadoes, hurricanes, drought and extreme heat, resulting in food shortages, public health issues, socioeconomic distress, further ecological degradation and more.

Can emergency management offices work with environmental and resource protection offices?  Can these, each and together, work with agriculture?  Forestry?  Can the MS4 permit goals be expanded to include water quantity management and ecosystem services?  Can hazard mitigation meet with water resource planning?  We are seeing movement in these directions across the nation.  Some examples are below – these are from my own experience, things I learned about recently at the Resilient America Roundtable hosted by the National Academy of Sciences where I represented one of the Ellicott City stakeholders, and from experiences of people that I know in areas around the country. 

My bottom line in all this is that restoration alone isn’t enough, the timeline is too short now to get us to biological lift in these systems.  We need to adapt and adapt quickly.  We need to be more holistic in our planning and implementation work.  Using Ellicott City as a case study, we can determine a framework for other watersheds that 1) defines goals, 2) assesses the hazards and risks, 3) plans for an increase of the impact and frequency of hazards, 4) looks at existing resources, programs and funding mechanisms for how they can address the watershed goals and hazards simultaneously, 5) monitors progress, 6) adapts to changing conditions, because face it - we are in a changing world and we don’t know what will come next.  This needs to be iterative and adaptive and will require coordination at various levels and types of government, non-profit and community groups, human service agencies and the private sector. 

Personally, I don’t see any other options.

Some things that I’m working on with Howard EcoWorks and our partners, including some natural climate solutions,  include:

  • Green jobs – this is the core of our work and let’s face this also, if we want change, we need to build an economy around that change.  The Local Government Advisory Committee to the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program spent 2019 evaluating workforce development programs and their potential to support environmental improvements.  There is some debate around how many actual jobs are out there to support a workforce but local governments generally see opportunity though they don’t necessarily want to be drivers and in some cases feel that they are victims to regulation – it is complex.  In my view, if we take a more holistic picture of the workforce opportunities within the context of the environmental need with respect to hazards and climate change, I believe we will be awash in job opportunities and can find ways to put cash in people’s pockets restoring our environment and adapting to change.
  • Convert grass to functional landscapes – Grass is pretty much useless, yet the fastest growing land cover in the Chesapeake Bay.  Let’s ditch the grass in favor of landscapes that support food (for us and wildlife), habitat, ecosystem services and the environment.  In 2020, we will be partnering with SilvoCulture to integrate chestnut and other nut trees into our tree planting palettes and projects to promote perennial agriculture in our landscapes.
  • Biochar – If you know me at all, you’ve heard me talking about biochar and its multiple benefits of carbon sequestration, runoff reduction, water filtration, impact to waste streams, improvement to soil health and more.  We are working on a study with the University of Delaware to assess the runoff reduction potential of biochar soil amendment in the soils around Ellicott City.  I wrote a blog about this in June, 2019[5].


Some things that I think we can consider locally:

  • Relaxing standards – we need to empower people to change their behaviors and lifestyles and already have some incentive programs in place to encourage this.  I think we could get more people on board to do projects that will enhance personal and community resiliency if some of the standards associated with the incentive programs were relaxed.  For example:
    • Reimbursement programs for “water quality” projects like rain gardens – Rain gardens just don’t fit everywhere and aren’t always the right solution.  Non-ponding options like Bayscapes are more flexible for landscape installation in terms of where they can be placed and they are also much less costly while really providing about the same amount of benefit as a rain garden when you are talking about a homeowner scale project.  Give “credit” to Bayscapes just like a rain garden to encourage and empower people to create functional areas from their useless turf grass.
    • Encourage and incentivize more tree planting – yes, a 2” caliper tree will have a greater chance of surviving and provides increased benefits up front but trees of this size are expensive and labor intensive to install.  Find ways to support more community and homeowner efforts to reforest and plant smaller sized trees too.
  • MS4 permits – allow local jurisdictions more flexibility in implementing MS4 permits to be inclusive of flood management and provide support for ecosystem services. 
  • Integrate hazard mitigation planning and water quality planning.  Include planning for climate change into each.  See some of the narrative above.

 Some efforts that I learned about at the Resilient America Roundtable in Atlanta in Fall, 2019:    

  • Charleston Resilience Network - a collaboration of public, private, and non-profit organizations seeking to enhance the resilience of the Charleston, SC, region and communities. Their mission is to foster a unified regional strategy and provide a forum to share science-based information, educate stakeholders, and enhance long-term planning decisions that result in resilience. Resilience requires preparation and planning to absorb, recover and successfully adapt to these hazardous events and conditions. 
  • RISE is a non-profit, economic development organization with a mission to accelerate innovation and business growth around solutions to coastal communities’ resilience challenges. RISE leverages local assets and global networks to enable businesses to develop, demonstrate and scale innovations that help coastal communities adapt to changing climate. 
  • Norfolk, Virginia’s Office of Resilience – Norfolk’s goals include: 1) Design the Coastal Community of the Future; 2) Create Economic Opportunity by Advancing Efforts to Grow Existing & New Industry Sectors; and 3) Advance Initiatives to Connect Communities, Deconcentrate Poverty & Strengthen Neighborhoods. The actions that support these goals and strategies are diverse and range from developing the gold standard in resilient land use codes, to collaborating with global partners to innovate the next generation of water management techniques, to exploring new financing models like catastrophe bonds and social impact bonds 
  • Iowa Flood Center - The Iowa Legislature created the Iowa Flood Center (IFC) in 2009 so that Iowans could have access to the latest technology and resources to help them prepare for floods and become more resilient to their effects. IFC’s outward-facing philosophy focuses on providing direct services to benefit the people of Iowa. The IFC is actively engaged in flood-related projects that help Iowans understand their flood risks and make better flood-related decisions. The IFC puts science-based information and technology in the hands of Iowa’s decision-makers, emergency managers, home- and business-owners, and the general public.

 Some other efforts that I have learned about from friends and colleagues:

  • Dry farming - An initial inspiration for this Oregon State University project was to try to help Oregon farmers adapt to drought conditions that are being made both more volatile and worse due to the pressures of climate change.  Dry farming refers to crop production during a dry season by utilizing the residual moisture in the soil from the rainy season, typically in regions that receive 20” or more of annual rainfall. Dry farmers work to conserve soil moisture during long dry periods primarily through a system of careful site selection, soil preparation, planting timing and technique, surface protection, and the use of drought-resistant crop varieties. These strategies could provide an alternative to irrigated crop production in the maritime Pacific Northwest on sites where there is deep soil with good water holding characteristics.  According to my farmer friend Teresa Retzlaff of 46 North Farm, “Our farm now grows all of our zucchini, pumpkins and winter squash without irrigation, as well as many tomatoes and dry beans. Participating in this project has also helped us to understand how to use less water for other crops that are not easily dry farmed, reducing our overall water consumption. Although our farm is not pulling our water from salmon bearing rivers, it feels like helping PNW farmers understand how to rely less on water to grow certain crops could positively impact watersheds throughout the region.”  Teresa also referenced a new non-profit focused on Dry Farming.
  • Cisterns Ridge to Reefs has done excellent work on island systems throughout the globe.  After Hurricane Maria, they provided relief and assisted in recovery in many ways.  Ridge to Reefs is working to install thousands of gallons of water storage along with the necessary purification infrastructure in water stressed communities across Puerto Rico.  Installation of these systems will not only provide immediate relief to tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans, it will also address long standing challenges that can come into play after disasters where the most rural areas and sometimes the last to have services restored. In addition to providing emergency drinking water to tens of thousands of people during natural disasters, these cisterns will serve to significantly augment the day to day water security of many Puerto Ricans in between disasters like Hurricane Maria. Many areas in Puerto Rico have enormous amounts of rainfall that should be captured and utilized to improve the water security of communities.  

In the time that it took me to write this blog, an entire continent has gone ablaze, half a billion animals have died and our climate crisis has been epitomized and captured in NASA images from space.   Restore and adapt, plan for an uncertain future and let's band together because we're in for rough ride.




What is a Weed?

posted Dec 26, 2019, 7:55 AM by Howard Ecoworks

What is a Weed?

by Georgie Hardesty

In the time I’ve spent as a crew member working with Howard Ecoworks, this is a question that I’ve faced in a number of ways. New crew members with experience in commercial landscaping have one idea, lovers of the environment have another, and residents watching the rapid growth of their rain gardens have yet another.

The dictionary definition comes close, but misses a few important points. According to Merriam Webster, a weed is “a plant that is not valued where it is growing and is usually of vigorous growth, especially one that tends to overgrow or choke out more desirable plants”. Though how we determine which plants to value where they are growing, or which plants are more desirable, tends to vary.

At Ecoworks, you’ll probably never hear an employee refer to a plant as a weed. It’s said that there’s no such thing as a bad plant- just plants that aren’t where they belong. And while most people first think of plants like dandelions and clover, there are likely far worse invaders going unnoticed in your local ecosystem. It’s important to understand the main factor in deciding which plants are valuable where they are growing, and which aren’t: native species versus invasive species. Here, a quick lesson on the different “weeds” I encounter in building and maintaining rain gardens and conservation landscapes.

Plants that just don’t belong-

Nonnative, or invasive, plants (plant species which were introduced to Maryland from another location, which compete for resources with and typically dominant native plants). Marylanders have likely heard of kudzu (Pueraria montana), but may be less familiar with other invasive plants like japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) carpetgrass (Arthraxon hispidus), mile-a-minute (Asiatic tearthumb), oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), and garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata). These plants may go unnoticed, but will quickly take over a garden and choke out native plants, which pollinators prefer.

Plants that aren’t actually bad-

Nonflowering native plants like grasses, phlox, mosses, ferns, or shrubs aren’t weeds! Just because a plant isn’t “pretty” doesn’t mean it’s useless- in fact, native grasses like little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), red fescue (Festuca rubra) , and yellow indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans) do much more for the environment than nonnative flowers or turf grasses.

Native Plants that aren’t so great-

Though plants like smartweed, poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), three-seeded mercury (Acalypha virginica), or dogbane (Apocynum cannabinum) may be native to our area, they are typically removed from gardens due to their aggressive nature. These plants spread quickly (some inflicting pain to humans and our pets), and generally reduce overall biodiversity in green spaces.

“Weeds” that are actually good-

Native plants called weeds actually provide valuable ecosystem services like water and air filtration, and providing shelter or food for wildlife. Milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) and joe pye weed (Eutrochium purpureum) for example, are key host plants for butterflies. I once saw a milkweed in one of our rain gardens fully cut down by a resident who wanted to maintain the garden- the right mindset, but more harmful than helpful!

Again, there is no such thing as a bad plant- just plants that aren’t valuable where they are growing. Familiarizing yourself with common invasive plants could do wonders for enhancing your garden, yard, and ecosystem. It turns out dandelions aren’t so bad after all.


Dig. Plant. Soak. Repeat.

posted Nov 14, 2019, 7:05 AM by Howard Ecoworks   [ updated Dec 26, 2019, 7:52 AM ]

Year End Fundraiser!

Spread the word! EcoWorks year end fundraiser includes this awesome shirt, modeled here by EcoWorks staff - Lori Lilly - Councilwoman and former EcoWorks Board Member Christiana Mercer Rigby, and Board Members - Kevin McAliley and Dick Hesse! Donate $50 anytime between now and Giving Tuesday (12/3/2019) and this can be yours! Secure your shirt - and make your donation TODAY!

                          Mail a check to Howard EcoWorks, 9770 Patuxent Woods Dr.,     Ste. 309, Columbia, MD 21046


2020 Business Sponsorships!

EcoWorks welcomes 2020 business partnership opportunities at the following levels!  Just click the BLUE Donate button on our homepage or Mail a check to Howard EcoWorks, 9770 Patuxent Woods Dr., Ste. 309, Columbia, MD 21046


Ellicott City - Soak It Up – Part 4 – By, Lori Lilly

posted Sep 22, 2019, 10:06 AM by Howard Ecoworks   [ updated Sep 22, 2019, 11:32 AM ]

Did you miss Part 1?  Find it HERE.

Did you miss Part 2 too?  Find it HERE.

Oh my goodness, you missed Part 3 as well?  Find it HERE.


Well, it took an EXTRA long time to get to this blog and I apologize! 

The focus is on resiliency - resiliency in Ellicott City, resiliency across Howard County, resiliency for all of us everywhere.  This topic has been so much on my mind for years now – what does resiliency mean on a real practical level to us as individuals, to us as a community, to those of us running programs and offering support services to those in need, to those in government, to those in business, to those growing our food, and on and on? 

 Thank you to all those across the world that came out for the climate strike on 9/20/2019.  The images of the masses of people at the strikes were incredible.  Climate change is not a WHEN anymore, it is NOW.   We need to change so much, and we also need to prepare, like in a real way.

We are hearing about mass declines in amphibians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_in_amphibian_populations

Mass declines in insects: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeting-insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature

Mass declines in birds: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2019/09/18/science.aaw1313

The UN reports that nature is declining globally at rates unprecedented in human history: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprecedented-report/ 

The NY Times reports, “Climate change will make those threats even worse, as floods, drought, storms and other types of extreme weather threaten to disrupt, and over time shrink, the global food supply.”

Extremes are going to have a disproportionate affect on those that are already in distressed situations. NPR reports on the increasing frequency and intensity of high heat indices: “Across Baltimore, the hottest areas tend to be the poorest and that pattern is not unusual.  Those exposed to that extra heat are often a city's most vulnerable: the poorest and, our data show, disproportionately people of color. And living day after day in an environment that's literally hotter isn't just uncomfortable, it can have dire and sometimes deadly health consequences — a fact we found reflected in Baltimore's soaring rates of emergency calls when the heat index spiked to dangerous levels.”

The high heat indices affected our crews tremendously this past summer.  We saw more heat-related illness than in the prior 8 years of running the summer READY program.  We are implementing new, stricter standards and procedures related to the heat index as a result. 

So why aren’t we all running around as if all this is an actual emergency?  Why aren’t we doing more to prepare?  I have been panicked and anxious and depressed.   I learned that there is an actual name for climate anxiety, solastagia: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18027145

Better, I found that there is a very useful 69-page guide to help manage this anxiety on an individual and community level.  If you suffer from this anxiety, I suggest you check it out: https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2017/03/mental-health-climate.pdf

·       The climate crisis is going to affect us in so many ways.  I think some of these impacts we can plan and mitigate for and others we cannot even predict.  These are some of the things that I would like to see happening:

·       More community-level planning and coordination – more private, government, and non-profit entities talking and planning for expected food shortages, impacts to the disadvantaged, high intensity storms, etc.  I’m sure this is occurring at some level, but we need more and more intentional focus to plan for climate change impacts specifically.

·       Invest in Green Jobs – invest in people to restore this earth; build an economy around a sustainable future. 

·       Protect and restore the Green Infrastructure Network (GIN) – in Howard County, the GIN represents our most sensitive and special ecological areas and it has become increasingly fragmented.  We know that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.  We need the ecosystem level services provided by the GIN to support us through the climate crisis.

·       Lose the grass and grow food and forests – preferably both, it’s called agroforestry.  Grass provides us with so little benefit yet it is the fastest growing land cover in the Chesapeake Bay.  Let’s convert lawns to trees, gardens and food-producing systems.

·       Find ways to make the above bullet cheaper and easier for every landowner to do (I have some ideas).

·       Focus on natural climate solutions – yes, reduce fossil fuels and, at the same time, recognize the ability of our natural infrastructure to mitigate this problem.  If you’ve read this far, then you probably already know that I am a big proponent of the opportunity for soil carbon sequestration with biochar (see the blog prior to this one) but there are many ways that we can work with nature to mitigate climate change.  Remember NOT working with nature is what has gotten us into this mess to begin with.

·       Empower the next generation – this is the best hope that I have for our future.  Let’s encourage their innovation, listen to their ideas and support their advocacy.

None of us can manage this alone, let’s please work together in a meaningful way to prepare for the future.

HOWARD ECOWORKS UNVEILS BRAND REFRESH TO STRENGTHEN COMMUNITY OUTREACH

posted Sep 17, 2019, 9:21 AM by Howard Ecoworks   [ updated Sep 17, 2019, 9:22 AM ]

COLUMBIA, Md., September 6, 2019 – Howard EcoWorks, an environmentally focused workforce development organization, announced today that it is seeking a new 2020 Soak It Up community partnership.  The Soak It Up community will partner with EcoWorks to educate and engage the public, install stormwater and habitat projects at reduced cost, promote environmental stewardship and support local “green jobs.”


The announcement comes after the organization spent the summer evaluating existing programs and campaigns, engaging in organizational strategic planning, unifying logos through a re-brand and launching a new promotional video.  Communities are encouraged to request a Soak It Up partnership with EcoWorks by completing a short form on their web-site or sending an email to hcecoworks@gmail.com.  

 

To better tie its expanded suite of environmental and workforce development programs together, the organization worked with an Ellicott City-based brand and design agency insight180 to refresh its logos for the nonprofit and each of its five programs.  “We’re excited to launch three re-branded workforce development initiatives - UpLift is providing underserved populations in our community an opportunity to build skills and find environmental restoration jobs; Seeds of Change, which teaches sustainable gardening skills to in-mates, and READY, our flagship summer landscaping employment program for young adults,” explained Lori Lilly, Executive Director of Howard EcoWorks. “Refreshing our logos is our way of communicating the breadth of the programs we offer and how they all work together to build environmentally healthy and resilient communities.”

 

In addition to workforce programs; Howard EcoWorks offers two environmental programs - Soak it Up and Tree HoCo – that assist communities and landowners with the installation of stormwater and tree planting projects on their properties.

 

“For years, we’ve watched Howard EcoWorks literally change the landscape of Howard County for the better,” observed Wendy Baird, president of insight180. “We are proud to support EcoWorks in clarifying their brand, their message and their look. We love their mission and were honored to work with Lori and her team.”

 

Howard EcoWorks is an environmentally focused nonprofit that empowers an under-served workforce to respect and restore our natural systems for future generations. EcoWorks has been working with government, nonprofits and community groups since 2017 to literally change the landscape of Howard County for the better. Through installation of native landscapes and leadership in environmental restoration techniques, Howard EcoWorks is leading the way in creating innovative environmental solutions, developing skilled workers, and creating partnerships for healthy and resilient communities. To learn more, visit howardecoworks.org.

Ellicott City - Soak It Up – Part 3 – By, Lori Lilly

posted Jun 18, 2019, 12:41 PM by Howard Ecoworks   [ updated Jun 27, 2019, 5:05 AM ]

Did you miss Part 1, Soak It Up event highlights?  Find it HERE.

 

Did you miss Part 2 too, on watershed tours?  Find it HERE.

 

Part 3 of this blog series took longer to get to than anticipated!  I’m going to jump right into biochar and save the discussion on Tour #3, which revolves around individual stewardship, for blog #4, the last blog, which will cover resiliency.

 

Where to start with biochar…

 

Well, my preference is to first broaden the discussion from biochar to soil health in general for a few reasons…


  1. I’m finding that when I talk about biochar, extreme reactions are the result.  It’s like folks will immediately get excited and ready to be part of this be-all-end-all strategy for saving the world OR they are turned off, skeptical and dubious about biochar itself and whoever is delivering the message.  Of course, as usual, we are looking for the middle ground here.
  2. We’re talking about biochar because we have this bigger problem with our soils – they are degraded, compacted and generally unhealthy.  Biochar is one of many strategies that can be used to improve soil health.  Biochar, being relatively new as a discussion point yet ancient in actual practice, is providing a vehicle for elevating the discussion of real underlying issues with our soil.
  3. Soil doesn’t get enough attention.  If you’re in agriculture, soil gets all kinds of attention but for some reason, it seems lost on the rest of us in the conservation field in terms of its importance to ecosystem services, including rainwater infiltration, carbon sequestration and stormwater runoff reduction.  We forgot what we learned in elementary school, which is that soil is a non-renewable resource – once it’s gone, it’s gone for pretty much good.
  4. Soil organic carbon and the potential for carbon sequestration in soil is a very real thing, just like climate change.  Some facts:


Here is a graphic to remind you of the carbon cycle.  We have emissions and plant and animal respiration putting carbon dioxide into the air, we have photosynthesis binding up carbon in plants, we have decay and decomposition putting carbon into the soil and we have carbon dioxide dissolving on the ocean’s surface where the majority eventually ends up in the deep ocean.



Probably good to take a second at this point to define biochar, oops!…Biochar is a charcoal material formed by combusting waste organic matter in an oxygen-limited environment. Biochar has high internal porosity and low particle density that facilitates increased infiltration.  Ongoing research at the University of Delaware shows that amending wood-derived biochar to a roadway soil that was initially classified in Hydrologic Soil Group B moved the soil into Hydrologic Soil Group A.  With this change, stormwater runoff volume was reduced by 88% on average for 84 storm events over 1.5 years of testing.  Biochar can be made from many different types of organic feedstock and therefore can have variable properties that are also dependent on the process used to make it. 

 

Biochar has been used in agriculturefor 2,500 years.  Research is ongoing with regards to the many environmental benefits associated with biochar.  Two leading national and international sources of information on biochar include the US Biochar Initiative and the International Biochar Initiative.  The USDA has also conducted a lot of research on biochar, HERE is a sample.   Take a second to check out this graphic illustrating how biochar ties into the carboncycle.  If the pyrolysis process is used to create other energy products such as bio-oil or syn-gas, then we can see up to 50% less return of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere with that same amount of carbon sequestered in the soil.

 

 

My own interest in biochar was spurred by the UDel research referenced above.  That is an amazing runoff reduction and indicates the potential for a very cost effective practice simply by amending soil.  What are the implications on a watershed scale?  What are the implications for the Tiber Hudson watershed?  What if we could take the 800 acres of grass land cover in the watershed and amend it with biochar – how much runoff reduction could we expect to see and how would that cost compare to other proposed strategies?  Seems worth exploring if you ask me.  And that’s why we amended a National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant that we have for the Soak It Up campaign to support additional research on biochar with UDel in the Tiber Hudson watershed.  Our research plots are on two different soil types in the watershed – silt loam at St. Peter’s Church and loam at Slack Funeral Home.  This research project will continue for another 6 months or so and then we will share results. 

 

So biochar can help to reduce stormwater runoff volumes and water quality pollution, but it can also be a strategy for carbon sequestration, increasing soil organic carbon and generally improving soil health.  Problem is, it’s not very available as of yet.  Production is not happening in MD.  But as stated earlier, it is an ancient practice and we can in fact make it ourselves!   I have been experimenting with making biochar in kiln that I had commissioned by Bill Knapp of Bill Knapp Arts: http://billknapparts.com/recent_work.  This was fashioned by designs that are available from a woman named Kelpie Wilson from Oregon who is really taking biochar to new levels: http://www.wilsonbiochar.com/.   My friends Paul and Phal at Ridge to Reefs have been supporting me in these efforts while doing all kinds of incredible work around the globe with biochar.  


Some fun things about making your own biochar:

      • It’s a great past-time in cooler months and a wonderful way to bring people together (especially when beer  and bagpipes are involved).  Everyone, whether they participated or not, feels like they were part of something productive and bigger than themselves.
      • It’s definitely a more active process than sitting back and watching the fire turn the wood to ash.  We may not have figured the process out entirely yet and may be working too hard to get good coals before we douse them with water but, still, expect to be more active.
      • The fire is started on top of the wood, which kind of throws the whole boy-scout philosophy of starting the fire on the bottom on its head.  But in this way, a better draft and less smoke is created.  Even if you’re not making biochar, this seems like a best practice that any outdoor-loving enviro can take on.
      • You’ll need something to put the biochar in.  I’ve used burlap bags that can hold up to 10 gallons and still be tossed over the shoulder – only problem is if the biochar is still wet or moist when put in the bags, they can get moldy.  The Phoenix has loads of 5 gallon buckets that have been working pretty well 😊


 

I’ll be having more backyard biochar burns starting this fall.  Meantime, we are also looking to add commercial grade biochar to our rain garden/biortention soil mix for our summer construction projects at about 5% by volume.  We are also generally looking for more ways and opportunities to get carbon into the ground, be it in the form of wood chips, compost and/or biochar.  One technique that we are interested in trying, is adding a layer of wood chips as shown in the graphic below to facilitate the denitrification process.  If we use this model that includes compost and biochar in the soil mix (“sand layer”) and wood chips on the bottom, we will have added three sources of carbon to the practice that will degrade at different times from a couple years to a couple hundred years and, ideally, enhance the overall functionality and ecosystem service benefit of the project.

 


When we talk about getting carbon into the soil, it enables us to re-think our waste streams.  The Alpha Ridge Landfill has so much organic wood waste- from slash piles to mulch to wood chips- that the County has a hard time moving.  Instead of letting this decompose and get back into the atmosphere, how can we bury it so it becomes part of the soil carbon pool?  Better yet, how we can use it to produce biochar and sequester that carbon in the ground for hundreds of years while also filtering contaminants from stormwater and reducing overall runoff volumes?  So far, I haven’t been successful getting the County to move on this, and certainly production at the landfill is out of the question.  They have also recently invested heavily in compost operations so may not like to hear that compost leaches nutrients but a blend of compost with biochar could be ideal for some applications.  In any case, there are existing mandates for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment.  It seems carbon management is or at least should be right around the corner - how can we start embracing local carbon management strategies as a contribution that we can make here locally to climate change?


Stay tuned for the last in this blog series - we'll be visiting Resiliency.

 


Ellicott City Soak It Up - Part 2 - By, Lori Lilly

posted May 30, 2019, 1:07 PM by Howard Ecoworks   [ updated May 30, 2019, 1:25 PM ]

Did you miss Part 1?  Find it HERE.


Last we left off at the 5/18/19 Soak It Up Community Gathering, the watershed tours were getting ready to start!  Below we will review some educational goals, background and details associated with the two of the three tours.  Tour #3 will be covered in blog #3 with biochar!

Tour 1 – Recent Floods and Mitigation Options

This group was led by community members: 1) Angie Tersiguel who owns Tersiguel’s Restaurant in Ellicott City - Angie and I met through our service on the Community Advisory Group (CAG) after the 2016 flood, we have since worked together in many capacities on behalf of Ellicott City and she has notably been on and helped me lead many watershed tours for local leaders since then; 2) Beth Woodruff – local resident community leader who I also met through the CAG.  I will never forget her honorable son Eli shoveling mulch and compost for community members at our 2016 native plant giveaway; 3) Dave Myers – who I met through our service on the Flood Workgroup – we sat in monthly meetings from 2015 through 2018 that were interspersed with becoming friends and developing a mutual admiration for one another; and 4) Ed Lilley – we have no relation that we know of but I like to pretend that he is my grandfather for kicks 😊 The guards at the George Howard Building never cease to comment on my relationship with “Mayor Ed,” indeed, Ed has more affiliations with Ellicott City groups than anyone I know and his knowledge and history of the town are not surpassed by very many.  We serve together primarily on the Ellicott City Partnership’s Clean, Green and Safe Committee.

Angie Tersiguel and Beth Woodruff - watershed tour leaders
Dave Myers and Ed Lilley - watershed tour leaders

This tour group left St Peter’s church and went north a short bit on Rogers Ave to Stop 1 – Quaker Mill pond (near the intersection of Rogers and Ellicott Mills), which is a pond retrofit project that will add 10 acre feet of water storage to the Rogers Ave subdrainage.  Although 10 acre feet is only 1.25% of the total 800 acre feet of storage being sought, the contribution to localized flood reduction at the Rogers / Frederick intersection cannot be under-estimated.  This is scheduled to be one of the earlier projects completed for flood mitigation.  The group headed back south towards Frederick for Stop #2 at the Historic Ellicott City Colored School, pointing out flood heights and extents to the group along the way.  There are many talking points from the Colored School from 1) concrete channels that are an “old-school” method of stream restoration (designed by the Army Corps of Engineers of course) not used any longer to 2) the flood warning system, Department of Homeland Security monitoring station and USGS flood gauge all located at this location to 3) opening remarks about the challenges associated with constrictions like culverts and bridges and issues of sedimentation from sources such as streambank erosion and hillslope failures to 4) the importance of debris management in the stream system – debris being one of the primary contributing factors to flooding and noting the importance of regular maintenance as part of a comprehensive watershed management approach. 

From here the group walked east into the West End neighborhood.  Unlike the downtown business district, the West End neighborhood had significant flooding in 2011 and neighbors have been rallying for resources and flood remediation for longer than most.  The group visited the famous “84/108 pipe” aka “8600 pipe.”  This is a culvert pipe that crosses under Frederick and West End Services for approximately 1500’ before outletting just east of West End Services.  The pipe originally installed at this location was 108” in diameter but during a repair was re-lined such that the diameter was reduced to 84”.  This is a significant constriction in the system, to be addressed with a series (5, last I heard) of overflow pipes that will be installed in the next several years. 

At this location (and actually in the last as well), another colleague from the Flood Workgroup, Ron Peters, installed several live web-based cameras that can be accessed by neighbors and County staff through an app on our phones so that we can see the conditions of the stream channels at any time.  Ron generously installed these cameras right before the 2018 flood, primarily using his own money and including a small grant that EcoWorks obtained and some fundraising led by Ed.  The data that Ron collected during the 2018 flood has been instrumental in calibrating and verifying the hydrologic and hydraulic models used in developing solutions.  The videos are also extremely educational for the public to see what happened on that fateful evening in 2018.  Illana Bittner has all 12 cameras displayed simultaneously on this video, which we showed throughout our 5/18 Soak It Up event.  Ron has marked the heights on the 84/108 pipe so that we can see from his camera how full the pipe is from our phones and the adjacent neighbor has the pipe marked with a line at “50% full – Get Out” – this is a very humbling reminder of what the locals deal with every time it rains. 

The tour group walked into West End a little further making one more stop alongside the stream to further show the impacts of our repetitive themes of erosion, sedimentation, threat to infrastructure, failing infrastructure, impacts to community members and areas where projects are proposed.  It is a lot to discuss and a lot to see.  Ron and I did a video tour that is available on youtube if you would like to check it out: https://youtu.be/TZM7JjsQqXs.  Further information about the proposed projects and plans are available in full on the County’s Safe and Sound web-site.

Tour 2 Balancing Historic Preservation and Flood Mitigation

This tour was led by Shawn Gladden, Director of the Howard County Historical Society, and Kip Mumaw, a water resources engineer and owner of the engineering company Ecosystem Services LLC.  The group left St Peters, went south to Frederick Rd and hung a right to visit a proposed stream restoration site that I have been working on for the past 3 years.  The “reach,” which is a fancy name for stream length, is between the bridge at 8777 Frederick and downstream almost to the Colored School.  Originally the reach started at Papillon Dr and included the wooded area between Papillon and the culvert by 8777 – but that was before the 2016 flood.  It really is amazing how quickly things change and how adaptable we need to be to the changing situation.  I feel like this project is emblematic of just that. 

Shawn Gladden and Kip Mumaw - watershed tour leaders

Some background on this project…I had completed the Tiber Hudson Subwatershed Action Plan in 2012 when I worked with the Center for Watershed Protection.  The plan that we developed was specific to “the uplands,” that means “the watershed,” basically everything outside of the stream corridor (the stream corridor meaning both the stream itself and the floodplain).  We left out the stream because a stream corridor assessment had already been completed at that time so presumably the County knew where the problem outfalls, erosion sites and other areas of concern were.  At the time of the completion of that study, we also were not, knowingly, using the correct watershed boundary – we used what the County was using that excluded the New Cut Branch subwatershed because it was beyond the scope of our study and work to delineate the complete watershed boundary and have it adopted by the County.  (Later after the 2016 flood, Ron and I did in fact drive around and delineate the complete watershed boundary, our results were pretty close to that produced by McCormick Taylor for the modeling.)

I began implementing the watershed plan when I was still working at the Center for Watershed Protection in part because there was no group existing that would take the lead on doing such, in fact, the first recommendation of the watershed plan was to form a watershed-based group to implement the plan (if you look at places like Montgomery County, they have tons of watershed and “Friends of <insert waterbody>” groups).  At CWP, I included multiple projects from the plan in a grant to the MD Department of Natural Resources with support from the County.  Although I left CWP in 2014, a few of those projects were still ultimately implemented: two bioretention facilities at the Bethyl Korean church and two pond retrofit projects, one at Rusty Rim and Rogers Ave and another at Seventh Day Adventist. 

Post the 2011 and 2016 floods, Stream Corridor Assessments were again completed, this time by S&S Planning and Design.  Those assessment documented the importance of debris management, prioritized erosion areas, outfalls of concern, constriction points and identified a series of projects.  One of those projects was within the reach of concern and contained “the sand bag wall” – one landowner’s approach to streambank stabilization.  This reach also notably contains the historic St. Paul cemetery maintained by Liz Larney and her lovely mother – maintained that is until the 2018 flood when the reach became so over-widened that the steel walkway that they kept tethered to a tree could no longer could reach the other side of the stream where the cemetery is.

"Sand bag wall"
Location of historic St Paul cemetery 

I received a grant just prior to the 2016 flood from the MD Heritage Area Authority to begin Phase I designs of a stream restoration project in this area.  As stated above, originally, the proposed reach went from Papillon Dr to the Colored School, which was a mixture of public property and private property.  I chose this section of stream because 1) it had been identified in a plan and funders always want to see that; 2) the sand bag wall seemed entirely inadequate and I know we can do better; 3) being upstream of the West End neighbors that I had been working with, I thought it would help them out being downstream; 4) the County has trouble making improvements on private lands so it would be a good way to complement their efforts; and 5) if a project with the private landowners didn’t work out, a project on the public land should have no concerns.  The County supported the grant application that went in under the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay who I was working for at the time.  The application also required support from then Senator Gail Bates and Delegate Bob Flanagan, who both provided letters of support.  No sooner was the grant award made when the 2016 flood occured.  What happened with the project was that we had to drop the public part of the reach from the proposal because the County had identified that same area as a proposed flood retention location.  So I moved forward with the private landowners and 750lf of stream for the remainder of the project.  All of the landowners remained largely on-board though some were more on-board than others.  That grant got us to 60% design plans with our contractor Ecosystem Services for the stream restoration with goals of stabilizing the streambanks, reducing erosion, creating some storage and directing the flow so that there was less impact to the streambanks.
Location of proposed stream restoration

To complete the design plans, I applied to the Chesapeake Bay Trust.  They awarded the grant and, again, no sooner had the grant been awarded when the 208 flood happened :/  That flood threw this project up in the air because the County was re-assessing priorities and projects and I did not want our project to get in the way of larger efforts.  The landowners were also getting impatient with progress and a bit harder to work with.  The historic home located at 8777 also came more into question as the foundation of the home also serves as the streambank (the entire parcel is within the 100 year floodplain), and we learned that the culvert at that location was under-sized for even a 10 year storm and was to be widened at some point. We also learned that an undergound detention “pipe farm” was proposed within the project reach across from the cemetery.  It turned out that our engineer could account for all of the factors with the design plans and we were able to move ahead.  We made the assumption that the historic home would be moved due to the culvert widening proposal as that would also be much better for the proposed stream restoration.

Other developments that have occurred since include purchase of 8777 by the County and transfer of ownership of 8787 to a new owner.  The culvert widening project seems to have gotten moved up in the timeline, which begs the question of what will happen with the structure and if the stream restoration project can be implemented simultaneously, which would be ideal.  Permits for the project have been submitted and are in review but the permit reviewers also want to know what will happen with the house.  While I am still looking for funding to construct the project, my hope is that the County will take the lead from here.  This is not a project that the sources of funds that I am used to going to will want to fund because it is not cost effective enough for “pounds of nutrient and sediment reduced,” the primary metric considered.  It could potentially be cost effective for supplemental funding from a grantor if the County kicked in funds. 

Stream restoration is a best management practice (BMP) used heavily by the County for meeting their Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) permit obligations.  Funds already exist in the capital budget for projects such as this, it is just a matter of re-directing them from other areas.  I’m not aware of any stream restoration projects to date in the Tiber Hudson watershed most likely because it is more cost effective to implement these projects in less urban areas.  But the need exists and while many people complain about the sedimentation and wonder why the stream hasn’t been dredged, it’s important to understand that most of the sediment is coming from the streambanks themselves so until the sources of sediment are addressed, there is not much point in dredging the channel.

That was a lot of background on the project and the points that I want to make and some of which were made on the tour are:

·        Preserving historic structures and mitigating flooding are sometimes at odds with one another but can be complementary.  This could be exemplified in this project if the historic home could be moved and elevated allowing the culvert widening and stream restoration to occur.  The historic cemetery that is being undermined by erosion would also be preserved.  Add a new breakaway bridge for Liz and her mom to access the cemetery for maintenance and we have a super cool project.  Consider making the historic newly elevated home a tribute to African American heritage and we’re talking a gold mine of demonstration and opportunity to showcase.

·        Stream restoration should be in our toolbox.  Yes we need retention and overflows and bypasses and bigger crossings, but we also need to stabilize these eroding banks and address the sedimentation into the streams.  Funds for stream restoration already exist but they have yet to be applied in the Tiber Hudson watershed (to my knowledge).  Capacity is already limited in undersized culverts and when they fill with sediment, they are that much more ineffective at conveying the flow.

·        The mitigation plans need to be adaptable.  Things change with each flood – with the infrastructure, with politics, with people’s tolerance and acceptance of timelines, with the hydrology and hydraulics, with the cost it will take to remediate. An adaptive framework will require a constant assessment - not that big changes will necessarily need to be made all the time, but they may be.  We need to be prepared to change our approach as the climate changes, as new technology becomes available, and as our priorities change.

 

Stay tuned for Part 3 – Soak It Up – DIY and BIOCHAR! and Part 4 - Resiliency

Ellicott City - Soak It Up – Part 1 - By, Lori Lilly

posted May 26, 2019, 8:15 PM by Howard Ecoworks   [ updated May 28, 2019, 6:22 AM ]

On 5/18/2019, EcoWorks and friends descended on St. Peter’s Episcopal Church to hold EcoWorks’ first public event, the Ellicott City Soak It Up Community Gathering.  I had been planning the event for what seemed like forever and was nervous and stressed as all get out.  The goals were: 1) To educate as many people as possible about watersheds, stormwater, Ellicott City flooding and Soak It Up solutions; 2) to showcase an innovative solution to environmental problems – biochar; and 3) to bring the community together in a positive way to celebrate the watershed because, frankly, it has been a really rough year. 

The May 27, 2018 flood was devastating not just to infrastructure, business, economy and livelihoods, but to overall morale and unity – the proposed flood mitigation options that were to come tore the community apart with divisiveness.  My personal experiences working in the watershed span multiple capacities as a professional and volunteer since prior to the 2011 flood.  As the Executive Director of Howard EcoWorks, we remain non-partisan and apolitical on the larger flood mitigation planning; our focus is on doing anything that we can to support both the County and the community in proactive solutions that includes debris management, community outreach and education and small-scale in-ground projects to encourage the folks in the hills to slow it down, spread it out and sink it in…hence, our event.

This blog is lengthy, and it may end up in multiple parts by the time I am done (it has!); my intent is to share the story of our event – which is mixed with the story of Ellicott City as I know it since 2009, the community, and the personal connections and friendships that I have made over the years…mixed with my technical and professional study of the watershed that have morphed and evolved, and I’m sure will continue to do so.   Inter-mixed with this blog will be hyperlinks to resources and further information that you may be interested in checking out at your leisure.

So the initial photos included in this blog come from Pam Long Photography.  Pam is…frankly, incredible…even just a meager attempt at trying to sum up her contributions to the town, particularly through flood recovery, leave me rather speechless.  She is THERE for new business openings, older business re-opening, documenting, always smiling, a voice of reason and hope.  I know I am not the only one ever grateful for Pam Long.  All of Pam's photos can be viewed on the EcoWorks facebook page for this event.


…we lit the biochar fire prior to the start of the event so that it would be going when the event started.  This was our fifth Burn and probably our greatest success with starting the fire because we learned at Burn #4 that old Christmas trees really go up in flames fast, and that’s no joke!  When I say “we” here, I’m referring to myself, my husband Dave, my Ellicott City friends, Dave’s family, and Paul Sturm and his Ridge to Reefs staff.  Paul is the one that really turned me on to the benefits of biochar (more to come later) and producing small amounts on our own was really appealing.  I personally invested in a kiln last fall – it was made by Bill Knapp in Ellicott City from a design that Paul and his employee Phal Mantha had directed me to that is available online HERE.  Having backyard burns and beers has been a great deal of fun and burn #4 is when bagpipes were introduced.  Wendy Baird, a friend and owner of Insight 180, has a partner Jared Denhard, who brought his bagpipes to our Burn – at our party, he processed up our driveway followed by Dave’s cousin Neal (carrying a ham) and joined by Neal’s two kids, Livy and Hendrix.  It was memorable, to say the least…and led to Jared with his bagpipes opening our event. 


After Jared’s procession, I welcomed the crowd of 80+ people…addressing large groups is not my specialty.  I have gotten much better with presentations in general in something like a lecture format, but I am unfortunately too much of a recluse to ever really be a charismatic speaker 😊

I asked Anjel Scarborough, priest in charge at St. Peter’s Episcopal, to say a few words, which she graciously did.  St Peter’s was the base of emergency recovery operations after both the 2016 and 2018 floods and has since opened their doors countless times with every heavy rain.  To say that St. Peter’s is an asset to the community is an under-statement, the church is an integral part like no other.  Which is why Beth Woodruff, community leader extraordinaire, then presented Anjel with a beautiful plaque and booklet with 56 pages of thanks from members of the community.  


The Educational Part

After the opening ceremony, began the series of watershed tours, biochar briefs, streaming flood videos and interaction with the tables at the event.  Let’s start with the tours.

The Tours

I learned an incredible thing from community member Frank Durantaye, long time resident and outspoken advocate for retention, and that was the value of taking people on tours of the streams and watershed.  Frank invited our elected leaders and those in office out for tours and included me along to help with the technical pieces.  Our first tours were with Jon Weinstein and Allan Kittleman, who both were running for office at the time and Delegate Bob Flanagan.  We also brought out County staff like Jim Caldwell and County Council representatives, such as Terry Chaconas from Courtney Watson’s then District 1 office.  Frank brought walking sticks and flashlights and away we went into the stream channel.  Since that time, I have brought countless numbers of folks on tours, including past and present elected officials - Calvin Ball, Jen Terassa, Christiana Rigby, Courtney Watson, David Yungmann and Opel Jones - and groups/organization representatives.  I don’t make everyone walk in the stream like Frank did, but the tour has been turning into a 3 hour driving and walking adventure and, many times, I have been accompanied by some stalwart companions, notably Ron Peters and Dave Myers, my colleagues and friends from the Flood Workgroup and Angie Tersiguel, my colleague and friend from the Community Advisory Group.

So with the tours, again, the goal is education- education through seeing up-close, seeing through a different lens.  There are so many things to talk about, and I realized how much we could talk about within a pretty short walking distance of St. Peter’s; I arranged for three different tours with separate themes – 1) a review of the flood mitigation options from community member perspective, 2) assessment of flood mitigation and historic preservation from professional perspectives in each respective field, and 3) review of solutions that every homeowner can take to mitigate runoff problems.  It was a bit difficult for me to give the tour leader role away but I thought I needed to remain at the event, and of course it was a good call because the appointed fearless leaders did great 😊  Not being on the tours themselves, but having assisgned the leaders, determined their routes and assisted with talking points for each group, here is a summary of what, I believe, happened on each of the tours that educated more than 50 people in 45 minute time slots...

 

Stay tuned for Part 2 about The Tours!


StormwaterStory Map

posted Aug 21, 2018, 12:29 PM by Howard Ecoworks   [ updated Aug 21, 2018, 12:29 PM ]

The Maryland Department of the Environment put together a wonderful StormwaterStory Map so that the public could learn about stormwater, why it matters, and what Maryland is doing to manage stormwater!  The StormwaterStory Map features two READY projects at the Greenleaf and Deering Woods neighborhoods.  Check it out!  StormwaterStory Map 

Sierra Villas - First Summer READY '18 Project Installation!

posted Jul 14, 2018, 8:28 AM by Howard Ecoworks   [ updated Jul 14, 2018, 9:04 AM ]


The summer READY crews have been trained and completed their first project installations in the Sierra Villas neighborhood in Columbia!  The projects were quite extensive and a bit more complicated than anticipated.  The area was marked for utilities but many unmarked utility lines were found during excavation, which slowed the process as crews carefully hand dug to locate the lines.  All four of the Crew Leaders are commended for their attention to detail and conscientious approach to the project.  The 510 sf rain garden, 230 sf conservation landscape and 410 sf conservation landscape will provide water quality treatment to a 18,553 sf drainage area that is 38% impervious.  Native plants throughout the gardens will provide food and habitat for pollinators and wildlife.  Prior to project construction,  the area had extensive bare soil and pooled water for extended periods of time creating unwanted mosquito habitat.  The neighborhood and property management company are very pleased with the results!  See below for details, photos and a video of the final project!  Thank you Howard County Government and the Sierra Villas neighborhood for supporting this project and providing our teams with valuable work and project management experience!

Lori Lilly, Director, 7/14/2018

Project area prior to construction (the brown matting was installed after some pipes were replaced under the sidewalks):

The project was designed by Chris Moore of Cultivate Landscape Planning and Consulting.  Here is a portion of the design:


During project construction, uncovering many utilities:


And the project after construction - Check out this video, which shows the extent of the work:


Sierra Villas.MOV







1-10 of 21